The city of Memphis, in a countersuit from a legal fight with the Memphis Fire Fighters Association, claimed city employees do not have "the right or authority to collectively bargain with the city" and requested a chancellor invalidate all of the city's agreements with its unions, the Commercial Appeal reports. The countersuit was filed Aug. 20, expanding the named respondents from just the firefighters union to the Memphis Police Association. In its filing, the city argues that past agreements were only valid under Mayor Paul Young, who signed them during his time in office and contends no state or federal law grants the authority to enter binding collective bargaining agreements. The police union has asked the court to strike the city’s filing, while its attorney, Deborah Godwin, described the move as a “scorched earth approach” and a potential act of retaliation. The case is currently being appealed before the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The Trump administration has requested $58 million from Congress to bolster security for the executive and judicial branches following the assassination of political activist and media personality Charlie Kirk, NBC News reports. The request said the funds would go to the U.S. Marshals Service to provide additional protective services for Supreme Court justices. While the administration supported using money for members of Congress, it deferred to lawmakers on how to manage that spending. Kirk’s death has raised concerns in both major parties, as a growing number of political figures have been targeted, attacked and killed in recent years. In response, several politicians have postponed rallies and canceled outdoor events.

Early voting begins today in Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District special primary, a crowded race to replace former U.S. Rep. Mark Green, Axios Nashville reports. The district stretches from downtown Nashville through western Davidson County to Clarksville and several rural counties. Eleven Republicans and four Democrats are on the ballot, including state lawmakers Jody Barrett, Gino Bulso and Lee Reeves on the Republican ticket and Aftyn Behn, Vincent Dixie and Bo Mitchell on the Democratic. Early voting runs through Oct. 2, and the primary election is set for Oct. 7.

Mississippi lawyer Brian Henry Neely was reinstated to the practice of law on Sept. 11. The Tennessee Supreme Court reports that Neely had been on inactive status since April 19, 2012. The Board of Professional Responsibility found that Neely’s petition for reinstatement was satisfactory, and he had met all requirements for reinstatement.

The Tennessee Supreme Court on Sept. 16 suspended Connecticut lawyer Wesley Shelman Spears from the practice of law in this state for one year. The suspension will be served consecutive to a two-year suspension Spears is currently subject to, according to a press release from the court. The court took the action after the State of Connecticut Superior Court imposed a one-year suspension on Spears on April 3. The Tennessee court notes that it gave Spears the opportunity to explain why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed but he did not respond to the request.

E-signature vendors offer legally-binding signing services clients can execute from anywhere. Use this chart to compare the vendors on key features. Find this and more in the Building a Firm section of TBA’s Law Firm in a Box.

Today is recognized as Constitution Day and Citizenship Day to commemorate the 1787 signing of our nation’s founding document and to celebrate those who have become U.S. citizens. Speaking about the importance of the day, TBA President Heidi Barcus said, "As attorneys in Tennessee, we have all taken an oath to 'support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Tennessee,' tangible foundations of our profession and the justice system." Constitution Day honors the vision of the founders and serves as a reminder that lawyers are uniquely positioned to uphold the ideals embedded in the Constitution — including through zealous advocacy, service to clients and pro bono work that expands access to justice. The TBA website includes a page of resources designed to assist in the presentation of Constitution Day concepts. Celebrate the Constitution today and tomorrow at events in Memphis, Nashville and Knoxville. Additionally, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee hosted the annual reading of the Constitution in Chattanooga last Friday, and continues to host events all week, including a naturalization ceremony for 100 new U.S. citizens at Tusculum University in Greeneville.

PER CURIAM. In 2024, the Ohio legislature passed a law that banned foreign nationals from contributing to candidates in state elections and from spending money to support or oppose state ballot initiatives. See Ohio Rev. Code § 3517.121. The plaintiffs here brought this suit, claiming on various grounds that the law violates the constitutional rights of lawful permanent residents. Thereafter the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, which the district court granted on the ground that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on one of their First Amendment claims. That injunction barred enforcement of the law against not only lawful permanent residents, but also against any individual who is a “foreign national.” The Ohio Attorney General appealed and moved for a stay of the district court’s injunction. After briefing on the stay motion, a divided panel granted the state’s motion in a published opinion that (including the dissent) ran some 24 pages. See OPAWL v. Yost, 118 F.4th 770 (6th Cir. 2024). In that opinion, the court held that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their claim that the First Amendment did not permit states to ban political expenditures and contributions by lawful permanent residents. See id. at 775–76. The parties and an amicus then filed merits briefing in this preliminary-injunction appeal. We have ourselves now carefully reviewed all the relevant materials, including the relevant cases. For substantially the reasons stated in the stay panel’s majority opinion, two of us conclude that Ohio is likely to prevail on the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims. See id. at 774–86. And we see little purpose in rehearsing those reasons in what would turn out to be essentially an identical opinion here. The plaintiffs raise several issues in a cross-appeal. They argue, for instance, that the ban on electioneering communications by lawful permanent residents violates the Equal Protection Clause. But that claim is largely derivative of their First Amendment claim—and likely fails for the same reasons. See First Choice Chiropractic v. DeWine, 969 F.3d 675, 684–85 (6th Cir. 2020). Specifically, as the stay panel held, Ohio’s law is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. See OPAWL, 118 F.4th at 785. The plaintiffs’ equal-protection claim is likely to fail, therefore, regardless of the degree of scrutiny that we would apply. The plaintiffs otherwise argue that Ohio’s ban on ballot-issue spending (as compared to spending on political candidates) by all foreign nationals violates the First Amendment. The plaintiffs further argue that § 3517.121 is void for vagueness. The district court has not yet addressed the vagueness argument; and though it might have addressed the argument about ballot-issue spending, OPAWL v. Yost, 747 F. Supp. 3d 1065, 1084–86 (S.D. Ohio 2024), the Ohio Attorney General contends that we should leave these issues to the district court on remand. We agree. We therefore reverse the district court’s order granting the injunction, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and with that of the majority on the stay panel— given our substantial adherence to that opinion here.

BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judge. For years, Kia and Hyundai produced cars that lacked a standard anti-theft device found in most other vehicles. So thieves began to target these cars in large numbers, which led to a nationwide surge in car thefts. In each of these consolidated cases, a teenager stole one of these cars and, while joyriding, injured an innocent driver on the road. Donald Strench suffered multiple fractures and severe injuries to his head. Matthew Moshi ultimately died from the accident. Strench and Moshi’s estate sued Hyundai and Kia, respectively. They alleged that the companies were liable under the Ohio Product Liability Act because they had manufactured cars with design defects that made them especially susceptible to theft, resulting in Strench’s and Moshi’s tragic injuries. The district court dismissed the claims for lack of proximate causation. In doing so, it relied on a line of Ohio cases that address an individual car owner’s liability for injuries arising from their car’s theft. We hold that those cases do not control product liability claims against car manufacturers, and that the design defect claims therefore survive. But we reject some of Strench’s and Moshi’s other claims on alternative grounds. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part.

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” What Publicity Can Do, Harper’s Wkly., Dec. 20, 1913, at 10. The Founders, though, recognized the benefits of sometimes keeping window curtains closed. Indeed, secrecy at the Constitutional Convention helped facilitate the forming of our nation. See generally John P. Kaminski, Secrecy and the Constitutional Convention (2005). And the Supreme Court of the United States has never recognized a hard-and-fast constitutional rule requiring public access to all governmental proceedings. McBurney v. Young, 569 U.S. 221, 232 (2013). Here, the Tennessee Judicial Advisory Commission, with no objection from the Tennessee legislature, has kept its meetings closed to the public since 2018. Dan McCaleb, a journalist, claims that the Commission is violating the First Amendment, as applied to the State through the Fourteenth Amendment, by depriving him of access to the proceedings. He sued Michelle Long, the official purportedly responsible for maintaining the Commission’s closed meetings. McCaleb’s single basis for relief is that his request would satisfy the experience-and- logic test recognized in Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California for Riverside County, 478 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1986), which we apply to requests for information tied to adjudicatory proceedings. As explained below, the Commission’s meetings are advisory, not adjudicatory, so the test does not govern here. We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Long.